CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-05401.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-05401.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-05401.a1

deniedJul 3, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal was based on disqualifying condition F1.

The denial was affirmed because the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision. Additionally, the Board could not consider new evidence presented on appeal, which included information regarding bankruptcy and work performance.

Therefore, the appeal was denied, as the Board's review is limited to claims of harmful error in the original decision and does not permit the introduction of new evidence.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 15, 2013after the close of the record
Decision dateJul 3, 2013

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Claims
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant raised no issue of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-05401.a1 DATE: 07/03/2013 DATE: July 3, 2013 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 11-05401

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On November 7, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 15, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence which indicates that Applicant is proceeding with his bankruptcy and performs well at work. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board